Cephalometric analysis of the middle part of the face in patients with mandibular prognathism.

BACKGROUND/AIM The middle part of the face, that is the maxilla, has always been mentioned as a possible etiologic factor of skeletal Class III. However, the importance of the relationship of maxillary retroposition towards the cranial base is still unclear, although it has been examined many times. The aim of this study was to conduct cephalometric analysis of the morphology of maxilla, including the whole middle part of the face in patients with divergent and convergent facial types of mandibular prognathism, as well as to determine differences betweeen them. METHODS Lateral cephalometric teleradiograph images of 90 patients were analyzed at the Dental Clinic of the Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia. All the patients were male, aged 18-35 years, not previously treated orthodontically. On the basis of dentalskeletal relations of jaws and teeth, the patients were divided into three groups: the group P1 (patients with divergent facial type of mandibular prognathism), P2 (patients with convergent facial type of mandibular pragmathism) and the group E (control group or eugnathic patients). A total of 9 cephalometric parameters related to the middle face were measured and analyzed: the length of the hard palate--SnaSnp, the length of the maxillary corpus--AptmPP, the length of the soft palate, the angle between the hard and soft palate--SnaSnpUt, the angle of inclination of the maxillary alveolar process, the angle of inclination of the upper front teeth, the effective maxillary length--CoA, the posterior maxillary alveolar hyperplasia--U6PP and the angle of maxillary prognathism. RESULTS The obtained results showed that the CoA, AptmPP and SnaSnp were significally shorter in patients with divergent facial type of mandibular prognathism compared to patients with convergent facial type of the mandibular prognathism and also in both experimental groups of patients compared to the control group. SnaSnp was significantly shorter in patients with divergent facial type of mandibular prognathism compared to the control group, whereas SnaSnp was significantly smaller in patients with convergent facial type of mandibular prognathism compared to the control group. Additionally, there was a pronounced incisor dentoalveolar compensation of skeletal discrepancy in both groups of patients with mandibular prognathism manifested in the form of a significant upper front teeth protrusion, but without significant differences among the groups, while the maxillary retrognathism was present in most patients of both experimental groups. A pronounced UGPP was found only in the patients with divergent type of mandibular prognathism. CONCLUSION The maxilla is certainly one of the key factors which contributes to making the diagnosis, but primarily to making a plan for mandibular prognathism treatment Accurate assessment of the manifestation of abnormality, localization of skeletal problems and understanding of the biological potential are key factors of the stability of/the results of surgical-orthodontic treatment of this abnormality.

[1]  Ljiljana Stojanović,et al.  A cephalometric analysis of the cranial base and frontal part of the face in patients with mandibular prognathism. , 2014, Vojnosanitetski pregled.

[2]  S. Baek,et al.  Change in maxillary incisor inclination during surgical-orthodontic treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion: comparison of extraction and nonextraction of the maxillary first premolars. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  S. Baek,et al.  Evaluation of Treatment Modality for Skeletal Class III Malocclusion With Labioversed Upper Incisors and/or Protrusive Maxilla: Surgical Movement and Stability of Rotational Maxillary Setback Procedure , 2009, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[4]  J. McNamara,et al.  An estimate of craniofacial growth in Class III malocclusion. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  S. Al-Khateeb,et al.  Uvulo-glosso-pharyngeal dimensions in different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[6]  R. Behrents,et al.  Components of class III malocclusion in juveniles and adolescents. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[7]  J. McNamara,et al.  Semilongitudinal cephalometric study of craniofacial growth in untreated Class III malocclusion. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  K. Vig,et al.  Comparison of incisor inclination in patients with Class III malocclusion treated with orthognathic surgery or orthodontic camouflage. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  L. Franchi,et al.  Stability factors after double-jaw surgery in Class III malocclusion. A systematic review. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[10]  L. Espeland,et al.  A 3-year patient-centred follow-up of 516 consecutively treated orthognathic surgery patients. , 2007, European journal of orthodontics.

[11]  U. Thüer,et al.  Stability of the hard and soft tissue profile after mandibular advancement in sagittal split osteotomies: a longitudinal and long-term follow-up study , 2007, BDJ.

[12]  M. Bagheri,et al.  Cephalometric Evaluation of Dentofacial Features of Class III Malocclusion in Adults of Mashhad, Iran , 2007, Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects.

[13]  J. McNamara,et al.  Craniofacial changes in Class III malocclusion as related to skeletal and dental maturation. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  I. Saito,et al.  Longitudinal intermaxillary relationships in class III malocclusions with low and high mandibular plane angles. , 2007, The Angle orthodontist.

[15]  T. Marianetti,et al.  Long-Term Skeletal Stability After Surgical Correction in Class III Open-Bite Patients: A Retrospective Study on 40 Patients Treated With Mono- or Bimaxillary Surgery , 2007, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[16]  H. P. Chang,et al.  Midfacial and mandibular morphometry of children with Class II and Class III malocclusions. , 2005, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[17]  Z. Šmahel,et al.  Cephalometric assessment of cranial abnormalities in patients with acromegaly. , 2003, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[18]  M. Mouakeh.  Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial pattern of Syrian children with Class III malocclusion. , 2001, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  T. Kwon,et al.  Stability of simultaneous maxillary and mandibular osteotomy for treatment of class III malocclusion: an analysis of three-dimensional cephalograms. , 2000, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[20]  S. Eisig,et al.  A cephalometric comparative study of the soft tissue airway dimensions in persons with hyperdivergent and normodivergent facial patterns. , 1998, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[21]  G. Singh,et al.  Localisation of deformations of the midfacial complex in subjects with class III malocclusions employing thin‐plate spline analysis , 1997, Journal of anatomy.

[22]  J. McNamara,et al.  An estimation of craniofacial growth in the untreated Class III female with anterior crossbite. , 1997, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[23]  J. P. Moss,et al.  Stability of surgical correction of patients with Skeletal III and Skeletal II anterior open bite, with increased maxillary mandibular planes angle. , 1992, European journal of orthodontics.

[24]  J. A. Jones,et al.  Craniofacial Form in Class III Cases , 1992, British journal of orthodontics.

[25]  R. Winter,et al.  Another family with the 'Habsburg jaw'. , 1988, Journal of medical genetics.

[26]  S. Nakata,et al.  Genetic and environmental factors in the development of so-called pseudo- and true mesioclusions , 1986 .

[27]  V. Diewert.  Development of human craniofacial morphology during the late embryonic and early fetal periods. , 1985, American journal of orthodontics.

[28]  E. Ellis,et al.  Components of adult Class III malocclusion. , 1984, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[29]  S. Matijevi,et al.  A cephalometric analysis of the cranial base and frontal part of the face in patients with mandibular prognathism Kefalometrijska analiza kranijalne baze i prednjeg dela lica kod osoba sa mandibularnim prognatizmom , 2014 .

[30]  L. Sandvik,et al.  Three-year follow-up of bimaxillary surgery to correct skeletal Class III malocclusion: stability and risk factors for relapse. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[31]  U. Thüer,et al.  Stability of hard tissue profile after mandibular setback in sagittal split osteotomies: a longitudinal and long-term follow-up study. , 2008, European journal of orthodontics.

[32]  T. Watts,et al.  A 3-year patient-centred follow-up of 516 consecutively treated orthognathic surgery patients , 2008, BDJ.

[33]  Chih-Han Chang,et al.  Morphometric analysis of mandibular growth in skeletal Class III malocclusion. , 2006, Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi.

[34]  R. Farina,et al.  Mandibular prognathism , 2005, Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

[35]  G.D. Singh,et al.  Morphologic determinants in the etiology of class III malocclusions: A review , 1999, Clinical anatomy.

[36]  W. Proffit,et al.  Trends in surgical treatment of Class III skeletal relationships. , 1995, The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery.